"And if (passing Willie Mays on the HR list) does happen, the only number I care about is Babe Ruth's. Because as a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That's it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I'll take his home runs and that's it. Don't talk about him no more."

It's not easy chasing a ghost. Barry's tired of it already, and he's going to say some even more provocative things when he gets to 700 next year.

Adrian Wojnarowski has his mind made up:

It is impossible for a living baseball player to even compare himself to Ruth, especially one who has generated so little goodwill for the game.

Yeah, the Babe was a saint. If Bonds got the same reverential treatment from reporters that Ruth enjoyed, Barry would be an icon. If the Babe's every word and deed had been public knowledge, his image as goodwill ambassador would have been destroyed. Bonds plays a tougher game against better opposition.

I'm no fan of Bonds, but Wojnarowski was heavy-handed and dogmatic. And no matter what you may think of Bonds, he certainly can compare himself to Ruth, for reasons which are obvious.

Wow, that Adrian piece is pretty horrible.

I honestly don't know who I'd choose out of these three left-handed left-fielders: Ruth, Williams, Bonds. (I guess Ruth has slightly more games at RF than LF....) Not even taking into consideration the prime baseball years Williams lost to the war, and it's clear these are the three greatest position players of all time. Bonds has clearly earned the right to compare himself to any and all of them, and if somebody were to tell me, "Bonds is hands down the greatest player of all time," I wouldn't argue with them.

Yup, chalk me up as a fan.

Well, he can, and deservedly so, even though I think it's distasteful to do so... I *like* humility. But I also like combativeness and competitiveness, and Barry's drive is great to watch.

Thanks for linking to Ratto's piece, Gitz. I really enjoyed that.

I don't think it's distasteful. Didn't Williams once say something like, "I want people to point at me and say, 'There goes the greatest hitter of all time'"?

Barry Bonds is one of the two or three greatest ball players of all time (you could easily make the case he's #1), more dominating in his sport than Michael Jordan was (in either sport). Bonds wouldn't have to make these grandiose statements if more sportswriters stopped masturbating to Ruth.

I think they're the top three position players of all time and the more I think about it , the more I realize I can put them in any order. Then I think there's Mays and Honus Wagner in no paticular order then Musial, Foxx, and Henderson grouped together. That's one something-less-than-educated fan's opinion anyway.

And now that I think about it even more, maybe Mays and or Wagner deserve to be in the top 4 or 5 position players ever, in no paticular order...

This is more proof that Wayne Gretzky should never, under any circumstance, be called the Babe Ruth of Hockey. He's the Ruth-Williams-Bonds of Hockey.

I *like* humility.

Barry has such respect for humility that he never uses it. That doesn't make him any less great, it just hurts his popularity.

"All I want out of life," Williams once told a friend, "is that when I walk down the street folks will say, 'There goes the greatest hitter that ever lived.'"

Yeah, and we all hate Ted Williams, don't we?

Uh, Donkit, I think the Iron Horse has to at least crack that third tier (I'd probably put him in the Mays-Wagner tier) with Mickey knocking on the door. And what about Cobb?

http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
In his time, Williams was pretty widely reviled - he was certainly not a darling of the Boston media, he once spat at (if not on) fans - you think Alomar was crucified for loogie gate, imagine if a player spat at fans today - and was generally an arrogant young jerk for a good portion of his career. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that he was treated much as Albert Belle was in visiting ballparks.

Sentiment toward Williams softened over the years, I think, because

1) He lived for so long
2) His military record
3) He grew into a beloved, gruff, straight shooting icon, almost a real life John Wayne

It was a beautiful moment when Williams got another chance to tip his cap to the Fenway faithful at the '99 All-Star game, something he refused to do even after homering in his last at bat.

Who knows? Perhaps as Bonds ages, fans will soften towards him as well, as the stories of his abruptness with the press are forgotten, and his records are remembered. I can envision the 2053 All-Star in San Francisco, when Bonds is wheeled in to a thunderous standing ovation. In a lovely bit of symmetry, Ted Williams will have been cured and defrosted by then, and will share the same golf cart with Bonds.

I don't think you could say Bonds is the greatest player "hands-down." There have been too many great players in history to make that kind of emphatic declaration. I think the generic "you could argue for Bonds being the greatest" fits quite well, and I would not quibble with that one bit. One thing Ruth has going for him is how successful he was as a starting pitcher, even if briefly. I know that has been mentioned before, but it really is a testament to how talented The Babe was.

Jurgen, I've read some of your comments about Bonds before, and I'd simply like to repeat that you would have a different impression of Barry if you saw him every day. Not as a player -- he would look even better to you, because he's even more amazing up-close, if that's possible -- but as a persona. You could say that about everybody, of course, but that doesn't make it any less true. In my A's column a few years ago I made some observations about Roberto Alomar, saying he was overrated and selfish, and some Cleveland and Toronto fans put me in my place (the Canadians were polite, of course), telling me Alomar really was "all that and a bag of chips."

Bonds really is all that and a bag of chips as a baseball player, and he really is all that and a bag of chips as a personality. You take the good with the bad, and my nine years of watching Bonds left me with two impressions: I've never seen anyone better -- and I may never -- but I've never disliked a player as much. I don't know what to make of that, but I am not a jaded journalist -- as I've said before -- nor are my many Bay Area friends who feel the same as I do, as I've also said before. None of this has any bearing on Bonds the player, and it's unfortunate the attitude has been conflated with the numbers, but it must be noted that these writers are not making things up; Barry is quite capable of raising people's ire on his own. (I did not, however, like that Wojnarowski piece.)

Craig was right on, as usual. (Note how I don't say "as always." Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.) We should not expect Bonds to be humble, but it would be nice.

So much for my pledge not to comment. I guess that does make me like Fox News!

Thankfully, I don't have to interview baseball players, so I don't ever have to deal with the unpleasant parts of Barry Bonds' personality. I only view the game as a fan - and, as a fan, I have tremendous respect for Bonds' work effort and his accomplishments. I don't know where he fits in among the greatest of all time, but he's right up there.

I am wondering: do the people who are the very best at their professions usually have temperaments similar to Bonds? Without thinking about it too much, I would guess that excellence usually requires a degree of focused obsession, and that that and niceness normally don't go together. (Mind you, Wayne Gretzky is apparently a very nice man, so there's exceptions to every rule - but, from what I've read about Gretzky, he just loved hockey so much that spending hours practicing was pure fun to him. Bonds' workout routine can't seem like pure fun to him, I suspect.)

In my A's column a few years ago I made some observations about Roberto Alomar, saying he was overrated and selfish, and some Cleveland and Toronto fans put me in my place (the Canadians were polite, of course), telling me Alomar really was "all that and a bag of chips."

I wonder where it all went wrong for Robbie? When he first came to Toronto, he was considered a nice guy. (I don't know whether this reputation was justified or not.) I don't have a copy of Second To None handy (the "as told to" biography he did while he was here), but I seem to recall passages in it stating that Alomar was unspoiled by success, etc. etc. No one could write that about him now and keep a straight face.

Maybe Alomar's career and life are examples of what fame and celebrity can to do a player. I suspect that if people went around all day telling me that I was wonderful, I might have become slightly stuck up too.

babe ruth was hitting more home runs in a season than ENTIRE teams.

To me, that's the end of the argument.

Dave, I think you're wonderful.

Not only that, Jackson's Point, but Ruth could also pitch a heck of a game, and surely that's the end of the argument.

A wonderful pitcher who transitioned in mid-career to the outfield, where he revolutionized offensive baseball. I can't imagine what kind of an offensive player it would take to have added more value to his clubs than did Ruth over the course of his career. With all due respect to the great Bonds, we haven't seen that player yet.

Gotta agree with Mike D. and jackson here; is it really an arguable point?

Bonds's case -- unfortunately for him -- seems to be best supported by numbers that are becoming devalued day by day. HR are cheap. SLG is cheapened by smaller parks.

How do you get beyond the fact that in one year, the Babe hit 54 home runs and the next closest player hit 19? How do you get beyond the fact that the Babe out-homered entire teams? How do you get beyond the fact that the Babe was also a very good pitcher? Finally, how can a suspicion of steroid use not linger when considering any modern slugger's accomplishments?

On the other hand, I wonder how much stock can be put in the counterargument that Ruth didn't play against the best available players because of segregation. First, it seems that argument could be used for today's players, in a weaker form, as in, "Well, because of other sports and entertainment options such as pro football and pro basketball, not to mention extreme sports, a number of potentially great baseball players have chosen not to play baseball." Second, I wonder what the impact would have been in the 1920's. What was the black/asian/latino population in the U.S. in the 1920's? What percentage of the general population could play pro baseball better than the worst MLB player if given the opportunity? In other words, black males made up 4.7% of the U.S. population in 1930. How many of those people could realistically have been expected to be better than the worst MLB player at the time? 10? 15? Hardly significant, IMO.

Jurgen, the Iron Horse never coems to mind when I think of that top tier, but now that I think of it with Foxx's lack of longevity and Henderson's lack of power I'll say he's with them and Musial. Cobb, I agree, is at least in that third tier... I'll say with Mays and Wagner. Remember, I call myself an un-educated fan and this is off the top of my head with no true backup statisticla or otherwise. I've seen all of their statistics but that's about as far as it goes. I consider myself rather well educated for a 17 year old baseball fan living almost as far East in Canada as it comes (not exactly a baseball hotspot) but I haven't seen or studied enough baseball to truly know my stuff.

You're all crazy. You're idolizing a player you've never seen, when you should be in awe of what a once in a lifetime player is doing right now. Bonds' performance at the plate during the World Series (.471/.700/1.294) was the most amazing thing I've ever seen, and I refuse to let his sometimes surly attitude spoil it. I'm in awe.

Will B. at Primer's Clutch Hits had a good response to the "more homers than other teams" thing:

[Ruth] was the first person to figure something out in a rapidly evolving game. Before he retired, many players were mashing homeruns at similar clips to Ruth. Give him credit for being a pioneer, but don't try to hold other players to that standard.

It's like saying "Christopher Columbus had more voyages to the West Indies than any other European NATION!" and then concluding that he was the greatest European Sailor of all time. He was the first (please don't focus on this disputed history) but that doesn't automatically make him the best. He was a pioneer.

That being said, Ruth is still the best :)

There are enough question marks about each of Ruth's (nothing but whiteys), Williams' (lost war years and still a lot of whiteys), and Bonds' (mid-career "slump" before rejuvenation at age 36) accomplishments that I'd call it a draw.

1. Sample size.
2. Pre-WS, there was the matter of the greatest hitter ever's complete lack of production in several playoff series.
3. But again, sample size.

4. Geez, Bill Walsh wasn't a great coach just because he pioneered the West Coast offense, dominating the league like no other team but the 1970s Steelers, changing the entire way the game of pro football is played, and winning multiple championships seemingly before any of the other geniuses in pro football could adapt. Yeah, nice argument.

5. No way will I ever believe that the lack of integration in the 1920s devalues Ruth's accomplishments in the way that Bonds's possible steriod use devalues his. Which is funny, in a way, given that I KNOW the former is true but I only SUSPECT the latter. But I guess I see the impact of the former as being so insignificant and both the likelihood (I got eyes, ya know) and the impact of the latter as so significant that I can't help but feel that way.

My argument isn't/wasn't/never will be Bonds is the best because of that World Series performance. I was merely saying that we got to see him at his best.

Can't Gould's hypothesis about why we'll never see another .400 hitter be used to "prove" that Bonds is the best? If Gould says that the distribution of talent means we'll never see another Ted Williams, doesn't this suggest that if someone now is putting up comparable stat to Williams (if not besting his single-season records) that this player is in fact better than Williams?

Furthermore, it seems to me that the ranking of HITTERS, contrary to our intuition, should therefore go: 1) Bonds, 2) Williams, 3) Ruth.

That should have read (and even besting some of his single-season records).

If Bonds' 2001 and '02 seasons had come right after his 1993 season (in other words, posted those gaudy OBP and SLG numbers in '94 and '95, and then hovered above 1.000 OPS for the next six or seven years), I don't think anyone would question his rightful place in the pantheon alongside Ruth and Williams.

Williams' second best season came at age 38. Hmm... how old is Bonds now?

Aside from the well publized training program, I bet laser eye surgery has played a much larger role than any possible steroid use.

And really, Bill James is just as surly as Bonds, and we all have no problem loving him.

Just give Barry some love!

Can't Gould's hypothesis about why we'll never see another .400 hitter be used to "prove" that Bonds is the best?

That's actually the best argument in favour of modern players. The overall skill level is so much better now; the average big-leaguer would have been a star in Ruthian times. Against the better-trained, bigger, stronger athletes in today's game, the Babe would still have been great, but his accomplishments would not have been so far ahead of the curve. Put another way, if you could transport Carlos Delgado to the 1920's (and the racist society allowed him to play) he too would have hit more HR than entire teams. So would dozens of other contemporary players.

The Babe does deserve credit for innovation, and in our less-gullible times, there will never be another ballplayer who is a bigger hero. Ruth's pitching ability may be the deciding factor in a "best player" debate, but he's not the greatest hitter, even if you believe he was better than Williams. Barry's detractors build their case around his abrasive personality and allegations of steroid use. I don't like him as a man, or think he's as good a "player" as A-Rod, but Bonds is #1 with a bat in his hands -- the best ever -- and I agree with Jurgen. We should be in awe.

Okay you ya-ho's! What the heck are you talking about? Babe was a great ball player, but he was playing in a watered down league First: Many ppl think that Bonds played in an enormous offensive era, but if you look at statistics, they are worng, it shows that the ERA of pitchers during Bonds's career is actually .4 less than that during Ruth's years. Batting average is a lot less too. This show that Bonds faced tougher pitchers than Ruth.
Second-Ruth played on great teams. Example, during their gretest season, Ruth with 60hr and Bonds with 73, The Yankees during that year averaged 6.22 runs per game comparing SF's 4.32, Yankees batter hit an amzing .307 AS A TEAM comparing to .270 for SF!! Ruth's teamates has how many hall of famers?Gehrig, Mantle, Lazzeri, Dickey, Berra... and numerous All Stars, How many HOFmers or future HOFmers have Bonds played with? one, maybe, Jeff Kent, maybe. Bonds havent played for a team that had a cumulative BA of .275, Ruth had played on many, with multiple seasons of .280, .289,.302,.307........... What does that tell you? The bottom line, if you do your own research instead of relying on the "hateing journalist" that don't like to see darker persuasions people break a white era recorder! Unfortunatley, Bonds is a jerk to the media, but don't forget how this war all started...Bonds has been a marked man ever since. I read in one of the above colums that Babe was an Icon...There's no doubt! Bond will never reach the status that Babe had and has.

Living in a White dominant country (especially economically) world, darker persuasion folks will never reach that plato until all things are equal and fair.

By the way, if M. Jordan were white, he would have blown his brains out because he would be a billionaire and subject to having 2-3 times the fame. YIKES!!!!

Better yet if Tiger were white...OH MY GOD!!!! HELP ME LORD!!!

Oh yeah, #1 Josh Gibson #2 Bonds #3 Mays #4 Ruth and #5 Williams

Ok, The only reason Bonds is not considered the G.O.A.T. . Is because of his to hell with you attitude. That being said, He will have the babes slugging, walks, and homeruns before he hangs up his glove for good. But, what about the stolen bases? Sure they were in his early in his career. But they were in his career. What about the golden gloves? This is the greatest display of power and speed ever. I am an Astros fan and was lucky enough to watch him blast his 70th homer in that record breaking season. He changed the whole way we played the giants that series. We walked him like crazy and Kent made us pay for it. He has completely changed the way managers play the Giants. But i could have saved alot of typing by just saying this very true statement. Bonds is the greatest human being to ever play the game of baseball.

I saw one of Ruth's bats at Cooperstown, it looked like a caveman's club. He couldn't have turned around Jamie Moyer's change-up with it.

The '27 Yankees couldn't beat a mediocre A ball team and if Ty Cobb had faced Billy Wagner he'd have thought he was from Mars.(Or the future.)

How hard did Walter Johnson throw? High eighties I'm guessing.

Mike Schmidt said a while back that players today make plays that guys from his generation never dreamed of.

I never saw Willie Mays but I guarantee you Andruw Jones is better defensively.

Joe Malone scored 44 goals in 22 games. No one says he was better than Gretzky.

Evolution is a wonderful thing.

These are baseball's glory days.

I never saw Willie Mays play but I guarantee you Andruw Jones is better defensively.

Let's try this one: I never saw Abe Lincoln speak, but I guarantee he was better than George W. Bush.

No matter how much I think this to be true, I can't definitively say it is true. Blanket statements such as "Jones is better than Mays" is hard enough to back up with evidence. Unless you're being ironic, to claim anything is better than anything else without having complete access to as much as you can about the competing claims is nonsense.

I have seen them both, on TV at least, and I'm not going to try to "prove" my opinion. If Jones is this great for another 10 years, I'll admit he's as good as Mays. Better? No way. Willie got just as good a jump (if not a hearbeat quicker) and had every inch of Andruw's range, with a stronger and more accurate arm.

Matt, I agree that these are baseball's glory days. There are more very good players than ever; Stephen Jay Gould's essay on the extinct .400 hitter explains that much better than I could. Bonds and A-Rod might be the best ever. Role players from the '27 Yankees bench probably wouldn't make the Show today, but you are completely underestimating the talents of the greatest players from the past. Even with his war club, Ruth could hit plenty of homers off the likes of Cory Lidle. With a custom, narrow-handled maple bat like Bonds uses, the Babe might hit 80. Cobb would be like Ichiro, only more annoying.

Put Billy Wagner into the Wayback machine (nothing to do with Wasdin; it's Mr. Peabody's invention) and set the dial for the early 1930's. Do you really think he'd be better than Lefty Grove? If so, you have my sympathy. You're missing a great game.

I never saw Abe Lincoln speak, but I guarantee he was better than George W. Bush.

It's worth keeping in mind, though, that the intelligentsia of his time thought that Abe Lincoln was mush-mouthed, uncouth, and generally an awful public speaker. In particular, his disdain for long speeches, obscure classical allusions, and rhetorical flourish made him the object of disdain and ridicule for the way he spoke. His accent was widely viewed as barbarous. His penchant for repetition made him a figure of fun.

The Gettysburg Address, in particular, was torn to shreds by the newspapers.

I don't think Bush Jr. is in any way comparable to Lincoln. But things are not always as they seem at the time.

Craig, I literally picked Lincoln from the top of my brain -- such as that organ is -- because of the futility of proving one way or another who was "better." There is the popular myth that Lincoln, no matter his platforms, would be unelectable today because of his reputed poor public speaking skills.

Re: the Bonds vs. Ruth/Williams debate. Bill James divided these kinds of discussions into peak value and career value. If you look at the peak, you're comparing Ruth 1920, 1921 and 1923 with Bonds 2000, 2001 and 2002. As it happens, it's really hard to judge the early 20s seasons because of the explosion that occurred after the Chapman beaning and the Black Sox scandal. Take one look at Rogers Hornsby's stats pre-1920 and post-1920, and you'll see what I mean. On the other hand, the Babe was far and away the best player in the game in 1918-19.

With regard to career value, I think it's becoming clearer. The Babe did not sustain his greatness quite as long as Barry has (probably because the Babe was, shall we say, less disciplined off the field, and more inclined to focus on the drink in front of him than the game, whereas Barry has probably the most intense focus in the game). Bill James said that generally career value is determined by what a player does in their 30s. Barry has clearly had the best playing career by a position player in their 30s (by an extremely wide margin, in my view).

As for Bonds vs. Williams, it really is no contest. Bill James said in the early 90s that Bonds was a better player, and since then Bonds has substantially elevated his game. Bonds has significantly more power, as good strike zone judgment, much better speed and is a much better defensive player. In a neutral park, Williams would have hit about 15-20 points higher. No one could seriously assert that Williams was as good as Barry if you had a good look at all the numbers.

I have the Bill James NHBA in front of me, and in the "postscript to the 2003 edition" he says, and I quote "it seems to me, as best I can tell, that Barry Bonds is still running behind Babe Ruth and Ted Williams, lifetime." He goes on to say that this is without taking into account quality of competition (which would give Barry a big boost), and that one should really wait until Barry is done before making any decisions.

For what it's worth, I say: Ted is the best ever with a bat in his hand, Barry is the best all-around position player ever, but the Babe comes out #1 because of his contributions as a pitcher.

How's that for playing all sides? =)

Does anyone know or have the Babes pitching stats.? I know he went 8 and 5 one year. By no means great. If you bring up the pitching. I'll bring up the stolen bases, golden gloves,and walks. Face it fellas. Just be happy you had the chance to watch the greatest baseball player to ever lace up a pair of cleets.

http://www.baseballreference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml
Does anyone know or have the Babes pitching stats.? I know he went 8 and 5 one year. By no means great.

COMN to see all of Ruth's stats, pitching and hitting. You really shouldn't quote stats off the top of your head.

Babe's pitching numbers are incredible for someone who essentially "retired" from pitching at the age of 24. I'm not sure how much longer Ruth would have lasted; there's evidence from the numbers that his arm wasn't standing up well to the rigors of everyday pitching, and of course more and more of his attention went into his bat anyway (by 1917, still a full-time pitcher, he had become one of the most fearsome hitters in the game).

He ranks 15th all-time in ERA (helped immensely by pitching in the dead-ball era, of course). Still, he is 86th all-time in ERA+, which takes the era into account. (Fenway Park in those days was pretty much neutral). To give you an idea, some other guys with an ERA+ of 120-124 (Ruth is at 122) are David Cone, Dave Stieb, Bartolo Colon, Bob Feller, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, and Tom Glavine.

The best modern-day comparison for Ruth as a pitcher, in terms of results, is Bartolo Colon. (Ruth was 94-46 as a pitcher; Colon is now 97-60). The main difference between them as pitchers is that Ruth was a little more of a power pitcher, and didn't have control as good as Colon. Maybe a 50/50 mix of Colon and Kerry Wood.

He led the league in ERA and shutouts in 1916, top 5 in strikeouts in 1916 and 1917, and had seasons of 18-8, 23-12, and 24-13.

Even in 1918, by which time he wasn't pitching full-time anymore (just 20 games and 19 starts, he went 13-7) he was still viewed as the Red Sox' best pitcher... so he got the call for Game 1 of the World Series, and then Game 4, and would almost certainly have started Game 7 if they had needed it. He got picked over Carl Mays and Bullet Joe Bush, who were two pretty damn good pitchers.
He won both Series games by the way. Just like he had won Game 2 of the '16 World Series... and he went 14 innings to win that one.

I love Barry, I think he's the greatest position player ever, but I flip back and forth every month about whether he's the best player ever.

So I ask this question. Is Bartolo colon, a shoe in hall of famer? And another thing Spicol. I see you havent posted anything. Much less stats. You probably another sour Ruth fan. Now if Craig B would have told me that. I would respect that. He knows what he is talking about. Go back to lurking. And if you resond to this post make it at least about the topic. Anyways, Craig who is your top 5 in any order?

Forgot to tell yall I'm tpsin. My bad guys.

Top 5 in any order? I lean to more modern players generally, over players from past eras, but the modern players just haven't been top-10 good except Bonds and *almost* Rickey. My top 5 in alphabetical order would be

Bonds
Gibson
Mays
Ruth
Wagner

and my second five in alphabetical order

Aaron
Cobb
Johnson
Paige
Williams

The tough guy to put in there is Aaron. I really have a top nine, and about eight or ten guys in a group, any one of whom could be in Aaron's spot. Oscar Charleston, Lefty Grove, Rogers Hornsby, Rickey, Mickey Mantle, DiMaggio, Joe Morgan, Lou Gehrig... these guys are all in a big jumbled group and depending on how you feel that day you can pick any one of them and make a good case for him as a top-10 guy.

Alex Rodriguez, though, is going to elbow his way onto the top-10 list in about five years and has a shot at passing Ruth and Bonds to boot.

Clemens, Johnson, and Maddux are all going to fall just short of this group, like Mike Schmidt and Cal Ripken did.

Also, you asked about Colon... with his late start and bad body, I would give Colon less than a 3% chance of being a Hall of Famer. He hasn't been dominant and isn't a popular, Don Drysdale type... I'd say he needs 220 wins to even have a chance, that's almost exactly eight more seasons at his established level (15-16 wins per season) to get there. Now Colon is 30, carries a lot of weight, and makes more money in half a season than most of us will see in our lifetimes. I don't see him pitching until he's 39 or 40; and even if he does, whether he can keep up to his current level of production is doubtful (not a strikeout pitcher, he will have trouble doing so as his arm ages).

If he can finish his career at 220-140, make it to a World Series or two, and continue to pitch well in his playoff appearances, he has a longshot, but he won't go in for a looooong time.

Colon's "similar pitchers through age 29" (after last season)...

Rick Sutcliffe (958)
Pete Vuckovich (952)
Mike Flanagan (952)
Monte Pearson (951)
Kevin Brown (945)
Ben McDonald (945)
Denny Neagle (944)
Don Newcombe (944)
Juan Guzman (944)
Charles Nagy (943)

No Hall of Famers. Newcombe is a popular candidate, that's it. Lists like this go to show you, how hard it is for a pitcher to stay healthy throughout his career. Just looking at that list of guys makes my arm hurt. Count the surgeries!

Thanks Craig, Alot of the old timers that i know tell these stories about Cobb. You would think he's superman. But some of the stories he told wear very impressive. Like this one. That one day he was thrown out stealing! So after the game he had the base pads measured. And what do you know. They were a foot and a half off. If true very impressive. And that Ricky from your list, do you Henderson. I have his rookie card best leadoff man ever. Wish he would retire though. Was Cobb a lead off man? Thankx again.

Cobb usually hit third, in front of Bobby Veach or Sam Crawford.

The Cobb lineup "problem" was that while he was the best on-base guy in baseball, and the best base stealer in baseball, he was also the best power hitter in baseball. It's sort of like the Barry Bonds pre-2001 problem (i.e. when Bonds was merely the best player in baseball, instead of some thermonuclear Babe Ruth). Slightly more of these players' offensive value comes from their terrific on-base ability... they also run very well... but you can't hit them leadoff, because you're sacrificing not just the best power threat on the team, but really the best power threat in the league.

This is usually solved by hitting the player third.

http://www.baseballreference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml
Raul, COMN means click on my name. I'm giving you a link to all of Ruth's pitching stats.

My bad spicol, kind of new to this pc thing. Thanks.

How the hell can anyone who attempts to claim any sort of knowledge relating to the game of baseball, say that Barry belongs anywhere NEAR the discussion of greatest players of all time? Just the numbers alone are a joke, Bonds doesn't compare to Ruth numbers wise, with the exception of ONE year where he was in his late thirties, roided out, and had the benefit of hitting against watered down pitching, a tiny strike zone, light bat, harder ball, shorter fences, hitters backdrops, personal chefs, private massuesses, weight rooms, batting cages, helmets, pine tar, batting gloves, body armor, the list goes on and on. Anyone with an f'ing brain can look up stats, just do it with each of their top 5 or even 10 seasons, compare the numbers and try to argue for Bonds!! But then theres the fact that Ruth would never turn down an autograph request, a photo request, always loved kids and would go out of his way to display his acknowledgement of his role as hero to every fan. To say Ruth, is to say Baseball. Anyone who claims to love the game cannot make this claim without coming to the realization that Babe Ruth is and was everything good about the game we all love. Bonds shouldn't be in anyone's top 5 players of all time.

How the hell can anyone who attempts to claim any sort of knowledge relating to the game of baseball, say that Barry belongs anywhere NEAR the discussion of greatest players of all time? Just the numbers alone are a joke, Bonds doesn't compare to Ruth numbers wise, with the exception of ONE year where he was in his late thirties, roided out, and had the benefit of hitting against watered down pitching, a tiny strike zone, light bat, harder ball, shorter fences, hitters backdrops, personal chefs, private massuesses, weight rooms, batting cages, helmets, pine tar, batting gloves, body armor, the list goes on and on. Anyone with an f'ing brain can look up stats, just do it with each of their top 5 or even 10 seasons, compare the numbers and try to argue for Bonds!! But then theres the fact that Ruth would never turn down an autograph request, a photo request, always loved kids and would go out of his way to display his acknowledgement of his role as hero to every fan. To say Ruth, is to say Baseball. Anyone who claims to love the game cannot make this claim without coming to the realization that Babe Ruth is and was everything good about the game we all love. Bonds shouldn't be in anyone's top 5 players of all time.

Hothe hell can anyone who attempts to claim any sort of knowledge relating to the game of baseball, say that Barry belongs anywhere NEAR the discussion of greatest players of all time? Just the numbers alone are a joke, Bonds doesn't compare to Ruth numbers wise, with the exception of ONE year where he was in his late thirties, roided out, and had the benefit of hitting against watered down pitching, a tiny strike zone, light bat, harder ball, shorter fences, hitters backdrops, personal chefs, private massuesses, weight rooms, batting cages, helmets, pine tar, batting gloves, body armor, the list goes on and on. Anyone with an f'ing brain can look up stats, just do it with each of their top 5 or even 10 seasons, compare the numbers and try to argue for Bonds!! But then theres the fact that Ruth would never turn down an autograph request, a photo request, always loved kids and would go out of his way to display his acknowledgement of his role as hero to every fan. To say Ruth, is to say Baseball. Anyone who claims to love the game cannot make this claim without coming to the realization that Babe Ruth is and was everything good about the game we all love. Bonds shouldn't be anywhere near anyone's top 5 players of all time.w

Hothe hell can anyone who attempts to claim any sort of knowledge relating to the game of baseball, say that Barry belongs anywhere NEAR the discussion of greatest players of all time? Just the numbers alone are a joke, Bonds doesn't compare to Ruth numbers wise, with the exception of ONE year where he was in his late thirties, roided out, and had the benefit of hitting against watered down pitching, a tiny strike zone, light bat, harder ball, shorter fences, hitters backdrops, personal chefs, private massuesses, weight rooms, batting cages, helmets, pine tar, batting gloves, body armor, the list goes on and on. Anyone with an f'ing brain can look up stats, just do it with each of their top 5 or even 10 seasons, compare the numbers and try to argue for Bonds!! But then theres the fact that Ruth would never turn down an autograph request, a photo request, always loved kids and would go out of his way to display his acknowledgement of his role as hero to every fan. To say Ruth, is to say Baseball. Anyone who claims to love the game cannot make this claim without coming to the realization that Babe Ruth is and was everything good about the game we all love. Bonds shouldn't be anywhere near anyone's top 5 players of all time.w

How the hell can anyone who attempts to claim any sort of knowledge relating to the game of baseball, say that Barry belongs anywhere NEAR the discussion of greatest players of all time? Just the numbers alone are a joke, Bonds doesn't compare to Ruth numbers wise, with the exception of ONE year where he was in his late thirties, roided out, and had the benefit of hitting against watered down pitching, a tiny strike zone, light bat, harder ball, shorter fences, hitters backdrops, personal chefs, private massuesses, weight rooms, batting cages, helmets, pine tar, batting gloves, body armor, the list goes on and on. Anyone with an f'ing brain can look up stats, just do it with each of their top 5 or even 10 seasons, compare the numbers and try to argue for Bonds!! But then theres the fact that Ruth would never turn down an autograph request, a photo request, always loved kids and would go out of his way to display his acknowledgement of his role as hero to every fan. To say Ruth, is to say Baseball. Anyone who claims to love the game cannot make this claim without coming to the realization that Babe Ruth is and was everything good about the game we all love. Bonds shouldn't be anywhere near anyone's top 5 players of all time.

Lets see, posts at 12:56; 12:56; 1:03; 1:04; and 1:05. What happened between 12:56 and 1:03? It's like the lost Nixon tapes.

Probably seven minutes of screaming and fist-shaking rage.

My top Five Position Players:
Ruth
Bonds
Mays
Wagner
Williams
And Top Five Pitchers:
Johnson
Paige
Grove
Young
Clemens

It seems that educated baseball fans are few and far between now days. When it comes to the greatest players of all time, there is Ruth and everyone else. For a 162 game average Ruth is .342, 46hr and 143rbi. His numbers dwarf Bonds' 162 game averages of .297, 41hr and 110rbi. Consider this, Ruth had more RBI than games played 6 times, Bonds has done this ZERO times. Ruth had 350 or more TB in a season 9 times, Bonds... 2. Ruth had a .450 or higher OBP 11 times, Bonds...6. Ruth had 175 or more hits in a season 7 times, Bonds...1. Ruth had 130 or more runs scored 9 times, Bonds...ZERO. Ruth won 2 legs of the triple crown 7 times, Bonds...1. Babe had a 162 game average for strikeouts of 86, Bonds...87. Babe had a 162 game average for walks of 133, Bonds...131. 162 game average for hits in a year? Ruth 186, Bonds 131. The numbers aren't even close, then when you consider the watered down pitching, lower mound, harder ball, lighter and harder bats, helmets, body armor, batting gloves, hitters backdrops, private team jets, private chefs, weight machines, steroids, millions of dollars in security, batting cages, video analysis, smaller strike zone, smaller ballparks, first class trainers, and the 162 game season compared to Ruth's 154, there is no comparison. Ruth's 60 home run mark should have an asterisk next to it. There should be a Babe Ruth award for greatest offensive overall season. The number 3 should be retired in every ball park. The fact that Ruth never played against negros or latino players matters very little. Ruth would have hit anyone, anywhere, anytime. He was tested by a university professor back in the day and proved to have in the upper 3 percent in hand eye coordination, and muscle reflex coordination. The ball breaks the same out of a dark hand as it does a white one, thats the bottom line. Look at the numbers which are lopsided, then take into account the advantages that the roided up Bonds has, he shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Ruth, let alone Gherig, Williams, Cobb, Mays, Hornsby, or Wagner.

Sorry about the repeats, not sure how that happened. But anyway, someone earlier suggested that if you too Delgado or any player from today and placed them in 1920, they too would outhomer entire teams like Ruth did. Thats a fun fantasy, but you're forgetting something. The Delgado you see today wouldn't be the same Delgado who would be playing in 1920. Delgado would have to ride on cramped, bumpy, dark trains from town to town, and he'd have to face actual major league pitching. A far cry from todays watered down minor league level of talent on the mound. He'd be hitting a softer ball with a heavier bat in ballparks that were commonly 360 down the lines, 405 in the alleys and 440 to center. Delgado would not be able to lift weights or take muscle enhancing drugs to get as big as he is. And he would not have the video analysis, scouting advantages, smaller strike zone, helmets, batting gloves, hitters backdrops, or pearly white balls all game long. You're also not taking into account that what made players back then better was that they appreciated the game. Players today are soft, they sit out because of sprained ankles, back spasms, jammed fingers,etc.. No such case back in the day. They'd spit tobacco juice in a gash, rub some dirt in it and keep playing. It was their livelyhood, their career, players today are happy to push fans aside, collect there millions, and promote themselves with no regard for the game or their role in it. Ruth was superior on the field, and despite personality flaws that have been greatly exagerrated, he had a true sense of his position and his role in society as hero.

There should be a Babe Ruth award for greatest offensive overall season. The number 3 should be retired in every ball park. The fact that Ruth never played against negros or latino players matters very little.

How can you write this without any supporting arguments?

The fact that Ruth never played against negros or latino players matters very little.

How can you write this without any supporting arguments?

Delgado wouldn't have been able to lift weights in 1920? Were there laws?

Randy argues that batting is an easier task today than in Ruth's era:

The numbers aren't even close, then when you consider the watered down pitching, lower mound, harder ball, lighter and harder bats, helmets, body armor, batting gloves, hitters backdrops, private team jets, private chefs, weight machines, steroids, millions of dollars in security, batting cages, video analysis, smaller strike zone, smaller ballparks, first class trainers, and the 162 game season compared to Ruth's 154, there is no comparison.

This statement ostensibly underscores his previous statement: Consider this, Ruth had more RBI than games played 6 times, Bonds has done this ZERO times.

Just for fun, let's take a look at some facts.

Only 28 times in Major League history has a player driven in more runs than his team played games. 22 of those events (three of which were Ruth's) took place during 1921-1938, roughly corresponding to Ruth's era. Two events took place in the 1800s, two in 1948-1949, and exactly ONE has occurred in the last 54 years, in 1999, when Manny Ramirez tallied 165 RBI.

But with all the watered down pitching, lower mound, harder ball, private team jets, etc., etc., etc., shouldn't it be EASIER for hitters to drive in more runs?

From 1924-1933, the typical AL team scored 5.03 runs per game. From 1994-2003, the average was 5.06, a gigantic increase of 4/10ths of one percent.

Again, if hitting today is so much easier, why hasn't run-scoring increased from Ruth's era? Are today's hitters just lazy?

The ball breaks the same out of a dark hand as it does a white one, thats the bottom line.

It breaks a lot sharper out of Satchel Paige's hand than yours or mine.

I disagree with most of the arguments made by Randy, but Ruth has to be number one on a list of best hitters of all time. He has to be. He has the highest career OPS and has the highest career slugging percentage by a wide margin. But he wasn't all about the long ball. He has the second best career on base percentage to Ted Williams and he consistently had a great batting average. However, it should be noted that Bonds is obviously one of the top 5 hitters of all time, and is obviously the best hitter since Ted Williams.

The thing is, it's really not fair to compare different aspects of various eras of baseball. The bottom line is we don't know how Bonds would hit if he had played in the 1920's and we don't know how Ruth would hit if he had played in the 1990's, so we should stop pretending we can figure it out. There are pros and cons to hitting in either era, so it seems rediculous to assume that one group of hitters had it way easier than another. The only fair way to look at the hitters is to compare how a player did relative to his competition at the time. In this regard, Ruth is untouchable. In 1919, the year before Ruth became the first player to hit 50 in a season, he broke the record for home runs hit in one season with a whopping 29. The year before that he was tied for the league lead in home runs with 11. In 1920, when he hit 54 home runs, only one team (not including the Yankees of course) had a higher total of home runs than he did by himself. I mean, that's rediculous. Now, to be fair, this also shows that there were not many great hitters at Ruth's time. It's much harder to stand out as clearly the best hitter nowadays, and it's to Bonds' credit that he's set himself so far apart from some pretty talented hitters.

Now, to be fair, this also shows that there were not many great hitters at Ruth's time.

I'm sure someone else could do a better job at arguing this but...

I think this statement is absurd. I think that the Babe was a great hitter who was, in a way, the first player to try to hit homeruns. He changed the game by swinging for the fences while also keeping a great BA and high BB totals. I have no doubt that among his contemporaries were as many great players as in any other era. It didn't take long for everyone to see the success that Ruth was having and what his approach was.

There are a couple of massive threads on Baseball Primer for Bonds v.s. Ruth that debate adjustment for Era, Negro Leagues, etc. Some good stuff.

S.K. -- Yeah man, there were state of the art weight rooms all over back then bro. They had treadmills, every weight machine you can imagine, you know ones that completely isolate certain muscle groups. All the players back in that era knew about them, but they just didn't know where they were. Especially Ruth, he couldn't stand the thought of all those weight machines, he was more the chopping wood, boxing, shoveling stuff, medicine ball type of guy. But yeah, I'm sure Delgado would have been an every day weight lifter, and he would have probably found a steroid back then to take. Since he was a superior minority and all.
Really, you all remind me of less than casual basball fans who think Ruth was a fat guy who ate a lot and hit home runs. Someone asked where my supporting arguments are that there should be a Babe Ruth award... are you friekin' kidding me. My arguments? Ummm I have a brain, I've played ball all my life, I appreciate and love the game of baseball and know that there used to be integrity in it. I could spit out numbers all I want and you'll still go back to the "he didn't play again blacks or latinos" thing, which is absurd. How you can determine this fact is more significant than the countless advantages todays game has, I'm baffled. Considering that there were only eight teams, and baseball WAS truly our national pastime, every if not most of all the good athletes played baseball and the talent was more consistent per team. If you go back to the "he didn't play against blacks or latinos" argument, then you have to also assume that these same so called black players weren't as good either since they didn't play against the best white players. It goes both ways, and the main point to be made, no player dominated like Ruth. White, blue, red, or green, color of skin is not a significant factor. Not large enough to negate the countless number of ways players today have it easier. I suppose just the same way you can ask the question, do you think O.J. did it? You can ask, do you think Bonds and other players have taken steroids? If you answer those honestly with logic and any sense of reality, then how can you consider Bonds among the top players of all time. What did he do before 2001? You know, before he came back 40 pounds heavier with an ever growing jaw and skull. What kind of fan disregards an offense that runs just below if not parallel to Rose's crime.

He meant supporting arguments that the fact he never played against minorities didn't make a difference. Cuz, without good supporting arguments ;-) (if you can get away with it, I can) , I think with Paige throwing to him, and Gibson bopping on , say, the Red Sox his numbers look just a little worse.

And , btw, the advanced technologies also mean that the pitchers' have been helped in Bonds' day. I.e. targeting specific muscle groups. And don't accuse a guy like Delgado of being on 'roids without even a little bit of evidence, please.

One more thing - I didn't actually say Bonds was better than Ruth. Remember that. Just keeping ti clear that it's conceivable and that the baseball fans here (not so much myself, I'm a pretty casual one) deserve a lot more credit than you give them.

"these same so called black players"

I love that. Now your doubting whether they were actually black.

But seriously Randy, you're being rediculous. Nobody here has given any indication they think Ruth was simply a "fat guy who ate a lot and hit home runs." I don't know where you got that idea. You can't act like the fact that Ruth didn't play against minorities doesn't mean anything and then say all this stuff about how it's so much easier to play today. It could only have helped Ruth that he didn't have to face minorities. Your right color of skin is not a factor, provided that certain colors aren't barred from playing. In that case color of skin does become an issue.

Also, I am so sick of people assuming Bonds is using steroids. You know people can get bigger without them. It takes a lot of hard work and dedication, qualities Bonds does not appear to be short on. Until I see a positive steroid test from Bonds, I am not going to discredit him. Call me crazy, but I just find it hard to assume the worst just because a guy got bigger. If Ruth was hitting today and hitting like he did in the 1920's plenty of people would assume he was using steroids, simply because he was doing so well. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

"What did he do before 2001?" Oh I don't know, win 3 MVP's (probably should have won more) lead the national league in OPS five times and the majors twice. Yeah he was a real dud before 2001.

Look I agree that Ruth is the best hitter of all time, but you don't give Bonds near enough respect.

you all remind me of less than casual basball fans who think Ruth was a fat guy who ate a lot and hit home runs

That's interesting, because at no point during this thread has anyone commented on Ruth's weight or diet.

Considering that there were only eight teams

Sixteen.

My arguments? Ummm I have a brain

That's not an argument, it's a petty insult to those who happen to disagree with you.

This isn't the MLB message board at ESPN. Playing fast and loose with the facts and resorting to ad hominem attacks when questioned isn't going to work here.

I don't give Bonds respect because he doesn't deserve respect. Fans are too quick to throw out how this player is great and that player is great, without taking into account all the factors. There are too many players in the hall of fame, its becoming the hall of mediocre.
You mentioned Bonds' three MVP's before 2001. From 1986-2000 he averaged 32 HR a year. Then the sudden jump.... hmmmm.... what does it take for you to raise an eyebrow, damn. Bonds is pissing on your face and telling you its raining bro.
Bonds' MVP years, (.301, 33, 114) (.311, 34, 103)(.336, 46, 123) Those are good years, don't get me wrong. Ruth's 162 game AVERAGE for his CAREER is (.342, 46, 143). In 2001 the National Leage averaged 1.13 HR/G, in 1927, the AL averaged .39 HR/G.
You say until Bonds is tested and its positive, stop assuming he's used steroids. Bonds is known for having great work habits when it comes to staying in shape, but a man in his late thirties, who's testosterone should be fading, not increasing, cannot bulk up the way Bonds did. Not that quickly. You think Bonds is the only one who works out all the time? There are guys who are in their mid 20's who's body's are naturally able to build muscle, and they can't even get that big. Just taking roids doesn't make you huge, but when you work out heavy, heavy, heavy, instead of needing a light day to allow your muscles to recover, thats what roids are for. And let me guess.. O.J. didn't do it either huh

I know there were 16 teams, I was in the AL mind frame, sorry to make your editing life more busy than usual.
I never meant to insult anyones intelligence in here, I just find it hard to comprehend how "baseball fans" can buy into such hype. Thats all. Of course, we are in the day and age where a player like Cal Ripken Jr. will be voted to the hall of fame for showing up for work, which is actually a game that he was getting paid millions to play. Longevity and consistency does not a great player make.
A couple fun facts for ya... After the Red Sox sold him to the Yankees, Ruth single handedly out-homered the entire Red Sox team in 10 of the next 12 seasons.
Ruth is credited with the invention of the modern baseball bat. He was the first to have a bat with a knob on the end, Louisville Slugger made the bat that he used to hit 29 home runs in 1919.
I'll leave with this.. top ten position players of all time.

1. Ruth
2. Gherig
3. Williams
4. Cobb
5. Mays
6. Wagner
7. Hornsby
8. Henderson
9. Foxx
10.Aaron

Ruth is credited with the invention of the modern baseball bat. He was the first to have a bat with a knob on the end, Louisville Slugger made the bat that he used to hit 29 home runs in 1919.

So Ruth was using a bat that no one else in the league was using? Well, now I've gone and lost all respect for him; and all his accomplishments don't seem as impressive. At least the supplements and alleged steroids that Bonds takes are available to every other player.

A top ten hitters list with no mention of Barry Bonds? That sounds like a less than casual fan who thinks Bonds is a guy who started svelte and ate a lot of roids.

Sorry, position players and not hitters. That only strengthens BB's case with all the walks, stolen bases, and early defensive prowess.

I guess we're going to have to disagree about whether or not we know Bonds uses steroids. My view is that I don't know that he used steroids any more than I know any ball player uses or used steroids. I'm not willing to hold this suspicion against Bonds and not hold it against everyone else.

For the moment, though, let's assume that Bonds does not use steroids. Then how high would you rank him. If you don't rank him in your top five then your just not being reasonable. Nobody is "buying into the hype". We're just giving him the benefit of the doubt and not using the possible steroid use as an issue. If you look at the numbers alone, he's got them. In my view their not as good as Ruth's, not as good as Williams', and perhaps not as good as Gehrig's, but he certainly has the numbers to be rightfully and necessarily included in the discussion.

With his defensive value (up to a couple of years ago) as a GG Leftfielder and his speed (500 SB and a 78% Success Rate), he probably passes everyone but the Babe by the time he's done.

Randy: You're coming across as a troll. If you are not, can you at least be mature in your posts?

P.S. I question your knowledge on baseball when you have a top ten list without Stan the Man or Mantle. Henderson was a great player but I think he's in the top 50, not 10.

I am enjoying this immensely.

My two cents... Barry Bonds is a great player, and given that he played 70 years of advances later than the Babe, has a claim to be the greatest player of all time. I don't think he's there, but he has a claim.

But as far as the most dominant player of all time, there can be absolutely no argument... Ruth is head-and-shoulders above everyone in how he dominated his competition.

And just the same, as far as the most dominant seasons of all time (or at least the 20th and 21st Centuries), Barry Bonds, 2001-03, has had the most dominant performances in the history of baseball. I can't think of an argument, and haven't seen one, that will convince me otherwise (Ruth 1920-23 is close, but I can't edge him ahead... "Parisian Bob" Caruthers in 1886-87 has a claim for most dominant ever, as well.)

Coming across as a troll huh? Actually Stan "the man" averaged .331, 25, 104, for his career. He Had 350+ total bases 6 times in his career, 175+hits 14 times in in career, had a .17 RBI/AB ratio and a 23.1 hr/ab ratio. Musial was a great player, he is not in the top ten for that very reason... its only 10. He is certainly in the top 20 for sure. And as far as Barry's so called defensive ability. The man couldn't throw out a crippled Sid Bream at home plate from deep shortstop. Barry has never had a good arm, not even average arm.
What the hell are you comparing Bond's 2001, 2003 numbers to when you consider most dominating performances. Thats amusing. Shouldn't you compare what he did to the rest of the league? Shouldn't you compare what he did with his competition and how far he outweighed it? If you do that, than how can you consider his two fluke seasons above Ruth's? Thats absurd that you can say that when the facts are right there. Do some research.

Coming across as a troll huh? Actually Stan "the man" averaged .331, 25, 104, for his career. He Had 350+ total bases 6 times in his career, 175+hits 14 times in in career, had a .17 RBI/AB ratio and a 23.1 hr/ab ratio. Musial was a great player, he is not in the top ten for that very reason... its only 10. He is certainly in the top 20 for sure. And as far as Barry's so called defensive ability. The man couldn't throw out a crippled Sid Bream at home plate from deep shortstop. Barry has never had a good arm, not even average arm.
What the hell are you comparing Bond's 2001, 2003 numbers to when you consider most dominating performances. Thats amusing. Shouldn't you compare what he did to the rest of the league? Shouldn't you compare what he did with his competition and how far he outweighed it? If you do that, than how can you consider his two fluke seasons above Ruth's? Thats absurd that you can say that when the facts are right there. Do some research.

who are you kidding???? Barry I can't throw the ball 105 ft. ahead of an aging, 2 knee surgery, white 30 something first baseman named Sid.
Leave the defense out of the Bonds argument and it sounds more logical. Is there no room in your mind to question why after more public testing of roids no player hit 60 HR?

who are you kidding???? Barry I can't throw the ball 105 ft. ahead of an aging, 2 knee surgery, white 30 something first baseman named Sid.
Leave the defense out of the Bonds argument and it sounds more logical. Is there no room in your mind to question why after more public testing of roids no player hit 60 HR?

who are you kidding???? Barry I can't throw the ball 105 ft. ahead of an aging, 2 knee surgery, white 30 something first baseman named Sid.
Leave the defense out of the Bonds argument and it sounds more logical. Is there no room in your mind to question why after more public testing of roids no player hit 60 HR?

Shouldn't you compare what he did to the rest of the league? Shouldn't you compare what he did with his competition and how far he outweighed it?

I actually don't like Bonds at all. But I like people who don't bother with common courtesy when debating a point even less. So I'll shoot this one down... let's say, on behalf of the Box.

Craig points out that Bonds' 3 year peak is better than Ruth's. In fact, Bonds' 3 year peak is better than Ruth 3 best seasons, period. I'm using OPS+, a over-simplistic number, but miles better than AVG/HR/RBI, and a measure that is relative to the competition, per Randy's request.

Bonds       Ruth (Peak 3)   Ruth (Best 3)
2001  262   1919  219       1920  255
2002  275   1920  255       1921  239
2003  231   1921  239       1923  239

Over to you, Randy. Please try something other than "OPS+ is bunk", that's not going to fly unless you can present better numbers.

"Is there no room in your mind to question why after more public testing of roids no player hit 60 HR? "

It seems to me that Bonds and maybe ARod would be the only ones capable of such a feat anyway and Bonds has had 403 and 390 at bats the last two seasons with a record 198 walks and a league leading 148 walks in those seasons. If Bonds could stay healthy and avoid deaths in the family, and if pitchers weren't so afraid to throw the ball anywhere near the plate when he came up, Bonds would be very capable of 60 in a season.

A couple questions for the faithful.

1 - The coaches and managers who voted Bonds to EIGHT gold gloves. What were they thinking? Are they stupid? Do they not know how to evaluate defense? Are you just smarter than they are? Do you have evidence outside of one play in one game to rely on, or are you seriously trying to weigh that against the considered opinion of a plurality of NL coaches and managers for eight years out of nine?

Careful how you answer. Remember that like Miss America, you are being graded on Presentation, Poise and Presence as well as the substance of your answer.

2 - What the hell are you comparing Bond's 2001, 2003 numbers to when you consider most dominating performances. Thats amusing. Shouldn't you compare what he did to the rest of the league?

I did. That's what "most dominating" means. Bonds was destroying the pitching in the NL over those three seasons at a rate no one has ever done, before or since, in any major league. That ain't hyperbole. Putting up more runs while using fewer outs. You know, what hitting is supposed to do?

3 - Is there no room in your mind to question why after more public testing of roids no player hit 60 HR?

No, there isn't. Bonds hit 17.56 home runs per 100 outs in 2002, and 16.92 in 2003 (he had had 22.12 in 2001, and 14.04 in 2000). So he's hitting home runs at quite similar rates (incidentally, Ruth's three best seasons are 17.7, 16.7, and 16.3... close to Barry but not as good). The difference is that Barry is being given zero to hit, because he's too good. The rules haven't had an opportunity to catch up to him (or to McGwire in 1995-99). He's such a dangerous home run hitter that you have to walk him constantly in order to survive against him... the walk is not enough of a penalty for players that good.

Nobody hit 60 in 2000 either. Why was that?

Coming across as a troll huh?
Yes. There's an established level of maturity in the debate that goes on here. If you can't keep up to it, go to Primer.
Of course, this is just my opinion.

Actually Stan "the man" averaged .331, 25, 104, for his career. He Had 350+ total bases 6 times in his career, 175+hits 14 times in in career, had a .17 RBI/AB ratio and a 23.1 hr/ab ratio. Musial was a great player, he is not in the top ten for that very reason... its only 10.
My point was that he was a superior player to Henderson IMO (as was Mantle too) who you have in your top 10. Barry should be there as well.

The man couldn't throw out a crippled Sid Bream at home plate from deep shortstop. Barry has never had a good arm, not even average arm.

You do realize that catching the ball is also a component of playing in the field right? Barry gave his team CF range in LF (when he was younger).

Randy:
Here are my top ten position players (difficult to do actually)

1. Babe
2. Bonds
3. Williams
4. Mays
5. Wagner
6. Cobb
7. Speaker
8. Aaron
9. Mantle
10. Musial

I don't have the firstbasemen (Gehrig, Foxx) you have in the top ten due to less career value (shorter careers). I don't think Hornsby is the best 2B of all time due to defense so I don't have him in the top ten (Collins and Morgan were better IMO).

Let's everyone give it up for my man Tris Speaker! Him and Musial are probably the most underated Super Stars of all time.

We can't pretend to know what Bonds would have done in the 20s, or what Ruth would have done today. You can adjust numbers all you want, but there are too many intangible factors in both eras to truly know what would transpire.

Now I'll get the fencepole out of my butt and cast my vote.

I vote for Ruth, and the reason is that to me, Bonds may be the best today, but he's got a lot more competition at the top than Ruth had, particulary in his early years with the Yankees before Gehrig came up and got close to him in the power department. Even then, they were head and shoulders above everybody else until age (and perhaps his love for the nightlife) caught up with Ruth in the early part of the 30s. In short, the gap between Bonds and the next best is not nearly as staggering, IMHO, as it was when Ruth was in his heyday.

As an aside, I'm a little surprised that Hank Aaron didn't make a lot of top 5 lists posted here. I guess it's because he didn't run up the gaudy numbers that Ruth, Williams or Bonds did in a single season; rather he just kept churning out .300/35/105 season after season.

Hey Jeremy, OPS+ measures the 'dominance' of someone relative to his competitors. It shows, as has been outlined here, that Ruth was better over his whole career but Bonds had a more dominating peak.

I won't waste your time or mine with stats that easily point out Ruth's pure domination over any player in baseball history. It seems the popular argument is that Ruth played against all white players. This is true. I suppose he should have went and scouted the negro leagues, then used his name and fame to break the color barrier much sooner. I mean really, what was he thinkin having fun playing the game he loved, saving it from the black sox scandal, revolutionizing the way ballparks were built, players were paid, equipment was made, athletes were seen in the public eye. Really, he could have done more. If any of you think that the top to bottom talent level per team is any better today than in Ruth's day, I would disagree. Actually not just talent, but talent and desire, desire to play and succeed when it was a game. Yeah, Ruth would struggle big time against the Orioles or Royals pitching staffs. He'd probably sit himself out for fear of looking silly against... oh wait, I can't name any of their starters.
Just curious if any of you Bonds fans even raise an eyebrow over the whole Bonds' trainer being arrested. As if players today don't have enough advantages over players in Ruth's era, they took it one step further with steroids. Thats what money will do I suppose, but damn, what happened to the f'ing game we all love.

My top 10 all time, without thinking too much (my last post ran 1200 words):

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Rogers Hornsby
Joe Jackson
Pete Rose
Joe DiMaggio
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Rogers Hornsby
Ted Williams

Simon, good call on your top ten list. You seem like an educated baseball fan who appreciates and loves the game. You did mention Rogers Hornsby twice , not sure if you meant to put in Honus Wagner in there once instead. Glad to finally see someone who doesn't consider steroids, errrr Bonds in their top ten list.

I won't go too much into the merits of Simon's list. But Pete Rose and Joe Jackson both there? "I fought the law" indeed. And why precisely do they rank ahead of Bonds, who may or may not have used steroids after 2000? Performance? Ethical probity?

Or more to the point, in Joe Jackson's own time, why would you consider him a better ballplayer than Tris Speaker? And in Pete Rose's time, why would you consider him a better ballplayer than Joe Morgan?

About the Bonds steroid thing. OPS + rates a players dominance relative to the league. That means that even *if* he's on the juice, we still get a relative stat (because, well, if he's on the juice most all the other great hitters right now are). And I agree with MG, that Pete Ros eproabably doens't belong on any top 10 lists (sorry, if I'm merely putting words into your mouth) and that Shoeless Joe probaably shouldn't be (he could have been, I think, but ultimately fell short).

I do think that Ruth is the number one hitter of all time, *but* I think I can immediately discount any top ten position player slist that doesn't include Bonds. There is no rational explanation for leaving him off of your list.

LOL...if you notice, that was posted at 1:42 AM, i wasn't in the most coherent mindset. I'd probably take Wagner instead of my second Hornsby. If you notice, i picked a lot of guys who excelled at what they did and set records. Rose, Ruth, Aaron etc. Also, i tend to like guys with high career averages, and guys who don't play in the modern era. Bonds is not in my top ten as of yet...that may change after he retires.

Well, if you take Wagner instead of a 2nd Hornsby, clubhouse harmony will definitely take a giant leap forward...Otherwise, the 2 Hornsbys would be at each other's throat, and Cobb would not be pleased (Joe Jackson and Rose would be taking bets on who would throw the first haymaker).

As for liking high batting averages, and guys who don't play in the modern era, how about Eddie Collins (.333) and Tris Speaker (.345)? Statheads like them both more than Rose because they drew walks and played a key defensive position very well. Actually, neither Collins nor Speaker would make my top 10 list, but would make my top 25 list.

Don't be fooled by Rose's hit record. He was a below average player for a number of years at the end of his career, but was kept on solely to pursue the record. It was really quite sad. He wasn't half the player that Cobb was.

Even if you want to discount Bonds' last few years because he's obviously on every performance enhancing drug known to man, you still get one of the greatest players in history.

Just replace his 2001-2003 seasons with repetitions of 1998 (a totally arbitrary selection, but probably around average for Bonds). He would go into 2004 with 605 homers, 1937 walks, 555 stolen bases and possibly another Gold Glove or two. He'd have a lifetime line of 292/416/575 with a few more good years in the tank to try and reach 700 home runs.

Maybe nobody would be comparing him to Babe Ruth, but I think that's kind of silly anyway; you could still compare him to Williams, Cobb, Mays, DiMaggio, Mantle and Aaron, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Of course, arbitrarily replacing three years of Bonds' career is pretty well a ridiculous exercise, but so is arbitrarily discounting them just because he might be taking a banned substance.

"I won't waste your time or mine with stats that easily point out Ruth's pure domination over any player in baseball history. It seems the popular argument is that Ruth played against all white players. This is true. I suppose he should have went and scouted the negro leagues, then used his name and fame to break the color barrier much sooner. I mean really, what was he thinkin having fun playing the game he loved, saving it from the black sox scandal, revolutionizing the way ballparks were built, players were paid, equipment was made, athletes were seen in the public eye. Really, he could have done more."

I hate to reply to this because it's so idiotic, but no one here blames Ruth for playing solely against white players and it's just plain stupid to suggest that. It's not Ruth's fault, but how can you say that it didn't help him that plenty of talented and worthy players were shut out of the league. It'd be as rediculous as saying that a pitcher in the negro leagues wasn't helped by not having to face Ruth.

I suppose I can accept some criticism for Rose. Maybe he isn't better than Barry. Maybe Speaker's better. It's all, of course, subjective. However, a player that can keep himself in the big leagues for that long and do the things he did definitely deserves recognition. Sure he got those 4500 hits in more at bats than anyone else - but still, the fact that he could maintain a career .300 average over 14000 career at bats is impressive. More than impressive, almost unbelievable. I didn't say Rose was as good as Cobb, but I don't think he's "not half the player that Cobb was" either. He's somewhere in between, probably tenth on my top ten list, but likely still there. Also, while Rose wasn't a particularly good defender, at least he played a variety of positions at an equally mediocre level. Many good hitters are stuck as bad first basemen or outfielders their entire careers, but Rose played an all right 1B/2B/3B/LF/RF. As for the Joe Morgan comparison, we are talking about the best hitters of all time, which in my mind includes what a player did throughout his whole career, and that Rose had a better overall career than Morgan is undoubtable.

I don't see how anyone can criticize my selection of Shoeless Joe though. Jackson, in my mind, belongs up there without a doubt. A .356 average in 5000 ABs is hard to argue with. Yeah, Cobb had a higher average in more at bats, and thus a lot more hits. But Ty Cobb is Ty Cobb! A guy who could almost match the best player in baseball history for 10 years before unjustly being banned from the game is a very good player in my books. Of course we can always argue Cobb vs Ruth as the best hitter and history, but for the sake of this argument I'm going with Cobb. Joe did almost everything Cobb did, he just didn't get the opportunity to do it for as long.

http://www.baseballprimer.com/clutch/archives/00010747.shtml#321posts
Simon, click on my name for a discussion of Rose's place in the pantheon of greats. The folks at baseballprimer.com can sometimes be unkind, but if you follow the discussion to the bottom, you'll see all the salient points.

As for Joe Jackson at ages 21-23, during the years 1911-13, he was behind Cobb and arguably Collins and maybe Speaker as the best player in the game. Long before the Black Sox scandal, 1914-18, his game had declined so that he was obviously behind Tris Speaker as well as the other two. On the whole for the period 1910-1920, Joe Jackson was the 4th best position player behind Cobb, Speaker and Collins. A great player, yes, but not one of the top 10 of all time, leaving all questions aside about the scandal.

Jackson was easily better than Speaker in '10-'13. In 1914, their BAs were identical, but Speaker had a better year in other categories. Speaker had a better '15 and '16. Jackson had a far, far superior 1919, and then their 1920 seasons were comparable, and then, of course, Jackson was banned. In light of these stats, as well as the fact that Speaker put up 7 good seasons after that, I think you can say they were very similar players. Speaker played for twice as long, but Jackson was just 30 when he was forced to retire. I disagree with the claim that he was in rapid decline when he was banned, so therefore I think it's hard to make a large distinction between the two players. Maybe based on James' opininon that actual performance should take precedence over projected performance, I can give Speaker the edge...it's very, very close though.

As for Cobb, I never denied he was superior to Jackson.

As for Collins, without examining stats as closely as i did Speaker's, i'd say that overall he was behind the other 3. He played something like 6 more full seasons than Shoeless Joe, and finished with fewer HRs, a lower OBP, a lower SLG and a lower career average. His highest average was .372 in 1920, while Jackson's was .408 in 1912. Collins had better seasons than Jackson in only '14, and '15. In ten years, Jackson had a better obp/avg/slg 8 times, which makes him cleaqrly better than Collins. Collins twice hit under .300, while Jackson never spent a full season (ie more than 23 ABs) lower than .301.

I suppose I really should amend my list to include Speaker and Jackson, rather than Rose and Jackson. That's about as far as i'm willing to go.

Simon - your failure to cite any statistics other than batting average (which is all but useless when we're comparing a bunch of guys who all hit .300 many times) pretty much kills your argument.

Curiosly, Neyer takes the 10 greatest in his last article. He uses win shares, obv Ruth is first, then... go to the article in ESPN.
PS do not COMN it will be a waste of time.

Simon, Joe Jackson's career averages are as high as they are because he didn't play in his 30s. If you compare him with Eddie Collins, the differences are:
1. Jackson had more power
2. Collins played 2b very well; Jackson was a LF
3. Collins had tremendous speed, and certainly much more than Jackson
They got on base at almost exactly the same rate during their 20s.

Why are Alex Rodriguez and Ryne Sandberg thought so highly of now? For the simple reason that they are both able to hit exceptionally well, and to play an important defensive position well. The same considerations apply to Collins vs. Jackson (or for that matter Morgan vs. Rose).

I may have only cited batting averages, but I was looking at OBPs and SLGs as well. I realize that these still are rudimentary judges of ability, but i don't have the knowledge or time to calculate some of the other statistics, such as OPS+. If anyone else wants to do it, hop over to mlb.com, click on stats, and have a ball.
Mike Green, you seem to be insisting that Jackson and Collins "got on base at almost exactly the same rate during their 20s". I am saying that it's not really true. I'm not sure of the age difference between the two players, so instead of comparing them by age, I'm comparing their yearly stats from 1910-20, and we still come up with the fact that Joe Jackson had a better BA, OBP, and more power than Collins. Collins did have the edge in terms of speed, I'll give you that, but Jackson was still a better player. I can't say I know much about either's defensive abilities, so i can't comment on that.

One of the truly great things about our national pastime is that it does evoke in depth discussion regarding different players from different eras and how they measure up. One cannot accurately compare Arnold Palmer to Tiger Woods, or Bobby Hull to Mario Lemioux, much the same way Barry Bonds cannot be fairly compared to Babe Ruth. It really wouldn’t be fair to put such a burden on any player, especially Bonds.
The significant advances in technology, changes to the rules in favor of offense, and the overall comfortability regarding the millionaire lifestyle all favor today’s athlete. The differences between Babe and Barry go beyond the numbers. Although most would jump to the stereotype and think of him as a fat drunk who only hit home runs, I would hope there are some fans out there who know and understand the truth. The truth that at 6’2”, his playing weight varied between 210 and 225 during most of his career. He did drink a lot, loved women, but most of all he loved baseball. And he loved kids, perhaps because he himself still was one. The point is that he lived uninhibited, free spirited, like the world was a playground. When it came down to it, he had an undying sense of loyalty to the fans, especially the children who idolized him, and took great pride in his position as hero. As corny as it sounds, I have a framed 8 x 10 with Ruth dressed up as Santa Claus with a boy probably 8 years old or so on his lap. This boy has a stunned but happy look on his face because he’s meeting his hero. This picture almost gets my eyes watering thinking about how great it must have been back then. How things have changed, how money has changed everything. Everything good about the game, about struggle, success, everything is in that picture. I don’t feel Bonds compares to Ruth on any level whether it be stats or as a baseball icon. One quote I read recently seemed to sum it up best, “sometimes people got mad at him, but I never heard of anyone who didn’t like Babe Ruth.”
Change is good, everything changes with time, it’s the nature of things. However there are certain things about today’s baseball that can be gone without. I believe that there are plenty of true fans out there that really do care, who really do want to see legit numbers put up. Hopefully someday someone with enough power and balls will throw an asterisk over this entire era preserving the integrity of our national pastime. A distinction needs to be made. Here are 20 reasons off the top of my head on why it is and has been easier to post “video-game like” stats in this era. Every one didn’t exist in Ruth’s time. Does the argument that Ruth only played against white players, take on a different tone after considering all of these advantages? Think about the alternative when looking at these, and picture Bonds without these.
1. lighter bats made of harder wood
2. batting gloves
3. pine tar
4. helmets, body armor, shin guards
5. harder ball with hardly any seams
6. lower mound
7. short fences
8. hitters backdrops
9. much smaller strike zone
10. watered down pitching
11. weight rooms
12. video analysis
13. personal trainers
14. personal chefs
15. injury prevention and rehab technology
16. private team jets
17. muscle enhancing drugs whether steroids or a form of it
18. excessive money leading to job and family stability
19. lavish clubhouses with batting cages and other perks
20. artificial turf

"I don't see how anyone can criticize my selection of Shoeless Joe though. Jackson, in my mind, belongs up there without a doubt. A .356 average in 5000 ABs is hard to argue with. Yeah, Cobb had a higher average in more at bats, and thus a lot more hits. But Ty Cobb is Ty Cobb! A guy who could almost match the best player in baseball history for 10 years before unjustly being banned from the game is a very good player in my books. Of course we can always argue Cobb vs Ruth as the best hitter and history, but for the sake of this argument I'm going with Cobb. Joe did almost everything Cobb did, he just didn't get the opportunity to do it for as long."

Perfectly stated, Simon!
I just spent an hour or so reading this entire string for the first time. Great to see so many passionate arguments about baseball in the middle of February, with three feet of snow outside my door.
I won't attempt to match stats with you guys, but would like to throw in my own Top 10 hitters list, without any research:
Ruth
Cobb
Williams
Gehrig
Shoeless Joe
Mays
Wagner
Hornsby
Musial
Dimaggio
with deep apologies to Aaron, Speaker and Lajoie.

The virtually obvious steroid use keeps Barry off my list and should keep him out of Cooperstown. (By the way, if Rose worms his way into the Hall before they clear the name of Joe Jackson, that would truly be a disgrace.)

Thanks. Now you may all tell me how crazy I am.

"One of the truly great things about our national pastime is that it does evoke in depth discussion regarding different players from different eras and how they measure up. One cannot accurately compare Arnold Palmer to Tiger Woods, or Bobby Hull to Mario Lemioux, much the same way Barry Bonds cannot be fairly compared to Babe Ruth. It really wouldn’t be fair to put such a burden on any player, especially Bonds."

Exactly. We'll never know how Arnold Palmer would have done against Tiger if they were playing in the same era, just as we'll never know how Bobby Hull would have done playing in the same era as Mario Lemieux, just as we'll never know how Babe Ruth would have done playing in the same era as Ted Williams or Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds. The best we can really do is compare each player based on how they did relative to their competition at the time. With this as the basis, Ruth can legitimately be called the best hitter of all time with Bonds easily in the top five.

"Hopefully someday someone with enough power and balls will throw an asterisk over this entire era preserving the integrity of our national pastime."

How stupid. Especially because every era stands alone. You can't compare players in any sport from different eras simply by putting their numbers up against each others. The idea is preposterous. I mean should the NHL put an asterisk over the 1980's because there was an offensive explosion.

Perhaps the asterisk statement was overboard, but that was the point. What do you think this eras legacy will be over time? That a player came into the league at 175 and transformed into 240 pounds of pure bulk by way of muscle enhancing drugs in hopes of performing better to get a higher contract? Is that really what baseball should be about? I'm just saying that its tainted, thats all. And as far as asterisks go, the one that should still be there is Ruth's 1927 60 home run season in 154 games. That season the entire American League hit 439 home runs. 439 divided by 8 teams, I don't have a calculator with me, but Ruth's 60 is probably pretty damn close to what entire teams average. How can you say Bonds dominates as Ruth did?

It is amazing nobody even mentions M Mantle.
Now that you are into it, it would be worthwhile to check the negro leagues. If you have a solid presence of black hitters after 1950 in any list you collect, what about the 50 years before. I highly recomend you Martin Dihigo, the best cuban player ever. Infielder/outfielder and a great pitcher ( for many the best cuban pitcher was Ramon Bragaña, but none as Martin with the bat )
Check also Josh Gibson, Wells, Dandrige, so many...

Randy, in 1927, Ruth and Gehrig had comparably great seasons. Ruth's era of dominance was 1920, 1921 and 1923. If you compare Ruth's slugging percentage and on-base percentage with league average during those years, and do the same with Bonds' slugging percentage and on-base percentage during 2001-2003 compared to league average, you will see that they dominated the league in about the same way.

If Barry Bonds did use steroids, you are right that his records are tainted. How about waiting until all the evidence is in? In the meanwhile, as Jays' fans, maybe we can support Vernon Wells' and Josh Towers' position of zero tolerance for steroid use.

Randy, again you point out the steroid thing. We don't know for certian htat he's taking them and if he is, everyone probabaly is. Like Peteski says, you cannot compare raw numbers across eras, only numbers in relation to the era. This clearly shows Ruth as the greatest hitter of all-time over a full career, and Bonds as having the best 3 year peak (by far). Bonds can't be penalized when using stats in *realtion to the era* because of steroids (since most everyone would be using them *if* he is), just the same way Ruth probably shouldn't be penalized for playing against all white players(we're still getting numbers relative to league, I can settle for that). Ruth should be the consensus number one, and Bonds should be consensus in the top 5, as should Williams and Wagner. I think this much can probabaly be agreed on by most fans who care to look, and are open to new ideas (fans who realize that numbers don't lie ... except batting average, runs, and RBIs ;-) )

Take what's in the brackets in jest, the wink might not be enough to show my joking nature. I'm not looking to 'flame' anything.

Donkit,

As someone who likes to speak about baseball and apprently is a fan of the game, shouldn't you spend less time condoning a steroid plagued era and more time appreciating numbers put up by legit players who did it the right way. Read the list of 20 that I posted earlier, I suppose none of these things matter in your mind right. If thats the case, then how much do you really know about the game, or have you played past little league? Seriously, just the strike zone factor alone creates a major advantage for hitters, especially against this days watered down pitching. I dunno bro, everyone is a fan of someone, I respect that, but you really shouldn't argue about something you have no shot of winning, let alone making a valid case at all with. You'd be better off trying to argue that Bonds is better than Mantle, or Joe D or someone. By the way, just curious, what other hitter in history has had his best 3 overall seasons in his late 30's?

As far as dominance goes, in 2001 the National league had 2975 home runs... what percentage of those did Bonds have?
You want dominance?
Ruth
1919 - 29 (league average per team with Ruth's included 30)
1920 - 54 (league average per team " " " 46)
1921 - 59 (league average per team " " " 59)
1924 - 46 (league average per team " " " 49)
1927 - 60 (league average per team " " " 54)
1928 - 54 (league average per team " " " 60)

and thats JUST HR

Well, nobody has better strike zone judgement than Barry. For him to walk that much, and see so little, and still hit 40+ bombs is amazing. I'm not condoning steroids by any means, I'm just saying that a stat like OPS + would account for that (assuming he's tkaing them). I agree that Ruth is number one, I'm just saying Barry should be in everybody's top five. As for "what other hitter in history has had his best 3 overall seasons in his late 30's?" I can't research that now, because it's late, but maybe someone can help me out.

"Seriously, just the strike zone factor alone creates a major advantage for hitters, especially against this days watered down pitching."

Yes, but the thing is that it creates this major advantage for all the hitters in Barry's era. My point is always that Barry has been more dominant relative to his competition (in the small strike zone era) than anyone since Ted Williams. The hitters of today may have the small strike zone as an advantage over hitters of the past, but I maintain that you cannot simply compare the numbers of two players from different eras and think that is sufficient. I mean, do you really believe that not one hitter from the last 30 years deserves to be in the top ten list? What would a hitter in this day in age have to do to be included in your list?

"As far as dominance goes, in 2001 the National league had 2975 home runs... what percentage of those did Bonds have?
You want dominance?
Ruth"

I don't know the calculations behind OPS+, but I'm told it shows OPS relative to the rest of the league, and it claims that Bonds has had the most dominant consecutive 3 years in baseball history. Mind you, Ruth is pretty close. Regardless, most people here agree with you that Ruth is number one. You're preaching to the converted on that point.

I'm glad to hear that you consider Ruth as number one. My only point is that Bonds does not belong in the top 5 of all time, at least not on my list, and I listed 20 reasons why earlier. I agree that over the years Barry has learned how to use the tiny strike zone to his advantage, how to use his body armor, and strict rules regarding throwing inside to hitters to his advantage. These players are so pampered and looked after that you can't throw 4 inches off the plate inside without a brawl starting. That isn't baseball, that's a lame ass game geared toward offense. As far as what a player has to do to be considered in my top ten, a player from this era. Well, theres nothing really, its too late for that. The game has changed too much. This is why I think a distinction should be made, in the record books and in the fans minds between different eras. Apparently the fans that care about the history of the game are few and far between. A couple players that I think will eventually be top 20 position player candidates are Vlad G and Andruw Jones. To me, those guys could play in any era and do well.
As far as the strike zone issue, you can't tell me that Barry doesn't get balls on the corner called balls more frequently than other players. So the pitcher has to throw a meatball 3-1 fastball down the cock and Barry flicks his little 29 ounce bat and pokes it out. Wow, how exciting, what a game its turned into.

"As far as what a player has to do to be considered in my top ten, a player from this era. Well, theres nothing really, its too late for that. The game has changed too much. This is why I think a distinction should be made, in the record books and in the fans minds between different eras. Apparently the fans that care about the history of the game are few and far between."

This attitude is just silly. The game may have changed, but it hasn't become an entirely different sport and frankly that notion is outright nonsense. I agree that you have to look at each player's numbers in the right context, but Barry has dominated his competition almost as much as the Babe dominated his.

And there are plenty of fans that care about the history of the game. I will always be in awe of the Babe, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be impressed with the accomplishments of today's players. A fan can and should appreciate both the players of the past and the players of the present.

You think that Andruw Jones is a better player than Barry Bonds??????

I'm saying that a player like Andruw Jones or Vlad, who are truly 5 tool players, would translate in different eras well. Bonds has never been a 5 tool player. And even more so now, hes only a 2 tool player at best. Considering his career batting average, you can make the case that hes only a one tool player. His RBI have never been impressive either, as as far as gold gloves go, what other good left fielder was there the years he won that? His stolen bases never came in bunches, i.e. Rickey Henderson. Bonds was consistent throughout much of his career granted, but the same goes for Hank Aaron. Consistency on a mediocre level should not be what gets you into any top 5 list. Aaron has more than 4000 career at bats more than the Babe for instance. So can we even compare his 755 to Ruth's 714? Sure we can, because we have to, but numbers go deeper than just ink on a page. Barry has NOT dominated his competition anywhere near on the scale that Ruth did. Perhaps when you get some time you should really look up numbers bro. You're gonna tell me that over the course of his entire career, not just these past few steroid induced statistical BS seasons, that Bonds dominated anywhere near what Ruth did.

This is a day and age where a corked bat can go flying all across the infield, and everyone looks the other way. A player who puts up numbers that are destroying the integrity of records put up by players who didn't cheat. After making the distinction between different eras, you still consider this a great era of baseball? If you're truly in awe of what the Babe did, then how does your logic even allow you to consider Barry in your top 10? Maybe we should make a top 10 from each. Without any number crunching here are mine. This eras players I'm assuming they continue to put up the same if not better numbers.

Ruth
Cobb
Wagner
Williams
Mays
Gherig
Hornsby
Foxx
Musial
Joe Jackson

R Henderson
Pujols
Vlad
Bonds
Andruw Jones
Piazza
Ichiro
Jeter
Troy Glaus
A. Soriano

Pardon the essay, but people seem to enjoy bringing up MVP awards when it comes to arguing for Bonds as an all time great. A logical case can be made that througout his career Ruth should have won the MVP award 11 times. Before you jump to say thats rediculous, consider this. The MVP wasn't introduces in the AL until 1922 when George Sisler won it hitting .420 including a 41 game hit streak. By rule, players were ineligible to win the award the year after they won back then, and the Cy Young award was not introduced until 1956, so pitchers were considered for the MVP award, much more so than now.

1919-- Ruth went 8-5 as a pitcher with a 2.97 ERA in 133 innings. That year he hit .322, set a record for HR (29), and led the AL in runs(103), RBI(114), Slugging(.657), OBP(.456), and TB(284).

1920--Ruth set MLB records for HR(54), runs(158), and slugging(.847). In 142 games played he also had 36 doubles, 9 triples and hit .376. His 54 HR were more than 14 of 16 MLB teams.

1921-- Ruth hit his 137th career HR breaking Rogers Connors all time mark of 136. He set new MLB records for HR(59), RBI(171), TB(457), and runs(177). He also hit .378.

1923-- won AL MVP award

1924-- having won the award in 1923 he was ineligible in 1924. He led the AL in HR(46), B.A.(.378), runs(143), BB(142), OBP(.513), slugging(.739), and TB(391).

1926-- Ruth lost the MVP award in 1926 to George Sisler who set a MLB record with 64 doubles and hit .358. Ruth that year had 30 doubles of his own while hitting .372. Also, Ruth led the AL in HR with 47(26 more than anyone else), runs(139), TB(365), slugging(.737), OBP(.516), RBI(145), BB(144), and runs produced(237).

1927-- Ruth lost the MVP award to Gherig who had 175 RBI and hit 47 HR. Ruth had a record setting 60 HR(more than any other team except his own). Also, he led the majors in runs(158), BB(138), slugging(.772), and OBP(.487). Oh yes, and he hit .356 with 164 RBI that year as well.

1928-- This year was a tragedy, he lost the MVP award to Mickey Cochrane who hit .293 with 10 HR and 57 RBI. That year Ruth led MLB in HR(54), runs(163), BB(135), and slugging(.709). He also hit .323 with 142 RBI.

1929-- For whatever reason they didn't give out an MVP award to anyone in 1929 but that year Ruth led MLB in HR(46)and slugging(.697). He also hit .345 with 154 RBI. Al Simmons would have been his only competition hitting .365 and leading the AL in TB(373), RBI(157), and runs produced(237).

1930-- Ruth led the AL in HR(49), hit .359 and had 153 RBI and 150 runs. Again, Simmons would have been the only competition leading the AL in B.A.(.381) and runs(152). Simmons also had 36 HR and 165 RBI that year.

1931-- Ruth lost this award to a pitcher, Lefty Grove. Ruth hit .373 with 46 HR and 163 RBI. Ruth's competition for the MVP would have been from Gherig who set a MLB record for runs produced(301), set the all time AL record with 184 RBI, led the AL in hits(211), runs(163), and TB(410).

Looking at it conservatively Ruth should have won 8 MVP awards, with 3 MAYBES in '29, '30, and '31.

Randy, not everyone will agree with your statements, but I sure admire your effort. :)

Bonds has never been a 5 tool player.

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly ignorant statement. You're talking about a guy who was routinely stealing 30-40 bases a year in his prime and is the only player in history with 500 steals and 500 home runs. He's got 8 Gold Gloves to his credit that he somehow manged to win while playing left field; say what you will about the GGs being overrated, but they generally don't go to medicore fielders that many times.

We don't need to discuss his power, but how about his batting average? He may not have been Tony Gwynn, but from 1990-2000 he hit lower than .290 once, and finished in the top ten twice.

This is a day and age where a corked bat can go flying all across the infield, and everyone looks the other way. A player who puts up numbers that are destroying the integrity of records put up by players who didn't cheat.

If it's proven that Bonds has been hopped up on steroids for his entire career, then no, his name won't belong among the all-time greats. But there's no proof, so it does.

http://www.baseballprimer.com
So, Randy, you're using the MVP award as an argument to place Ruth above Bonds. Certainly a flawed method, but fine, let's go with it. So, then why are you leaving Bonds out of your top ten? In the name of consitency, he has to be included. Of course, as is abundantly clear, you don't really care about consistency, logic, a valid argument, or anything else of that sort. You're a troll pure and simple and I think it's high time you simply be ignored. COMN for a place to which you're better suited.

And Craig, bloody brilliant.

I quit replying after Ichiro and Troy Glaus were placed as top 10 players of this era ahead of the likes of The Big Hurt (and many others). Well said, Craig.

BTW, my favorite baseless comment in this entire thread was

"What the hell are you comparing Bond's 2001, 2003 numbers to when you consider most dominating performances. Thats amusing. Shouldn't you compare what he did to the rest of the league? Shouldn't you compare what he did with his competition and how far he outweighed it? If you do that, than how can you consider his two fluke seasons above Ruth's? Thats absurd that you can say that when the facts are right there. Do some research."

Of course, compared to the rest of the league it *was* the best ever. I won't say who made the comment.

You're right bro, I'll stop bringing up valid points and historical data that proves Ruth's dominance. It seems nothing will sway you from your point of view that steroids and blown up stats are good for the integrity of the game. Its all good. As far as pinched grimace or whatever, hardly, actually I find it amusing that you cannot see something that is so clear. lol, enjoy the league, hey, maybe this year Alex Cora will have bulked up 40 pounds, and he'll be the next 40/40 guy. That would be good for the game.

"Shouldn't you compare what he did with his competition and how far he outweighed it? If you do that, than how can you consider his two fluke seasons above Ruth's?" ~ Randy

Look at OPS + ... it measures one's dominance IN RELATION TO LEAGUE (ergo, his competition). Bonds' peak** was better than Ruth's. 'Nuff said. Nothing concerning steroids and other things have been confirmed. UNtil then, Bonds is on the same level with Babe, The Splendid Splinter, and Honus Wagner. Ruth is above those three but *only* slightly.

**Ruth's *career* was better than Barry's, as measure by OPS +. And by peak, I'm lookin at three seasons.

And to think I could ignore this thread... damn lack of willpower!

Randy: why are you here? You don't seem to have any logic or rational arguments other than the "Bonds-is-juiced" and even that is questionable.

Bonds has never been a 5 tool player.
So many things wrong with that statement. If he's not, then who is?

(Craig, send him to The Cabal or something.)

Oh, and Randy: one more thing:

educated baseball fans are few and far between

the fans that care about the history of the game are few and far between

Does your record player only have one song? Play another tune, "bro", we're all getting tired of it.

lol right on, take care...if you all don't get it by now you never will. It's amazing that theres still even a question in your minds about the steroid issue, but so be it. Later

Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Randy. Bonds is clean until *proven* otherwise.

Which is why we talked to you in an orderly fashion for awhile.Innocent of being a troll ... until you proved unworthy of our time (well, I guess I kept tlaking....I'm a sucker for an argument) with your baseless arguments (No, home runs are not the standard bearer for dominance, I don't care if he outhomered leagues. He simply pioneered the power swing, and by the time he was done he was no longer as dominating wiht the longball. Others realized what he alreayd knew). The first guy to strike someone out throwing overhand *is not* the best pitcher ever. Ruth is the best hitter ever, but Bonds is up there.

Donkit, we're the only two who really bothered with him after Craig ripped him a new one. My excuse is that I'm only 16 and don't know better...what's yours? :)

In case my :) doesn't imply, I was joking...don't want to offend anyone. After this thread, YouNeverKnow.

If that's your excuse, mine is that I'm 17 ;-) . In all seriousness, though, I'm simply a stickler for an argument.

BTW, damn you! I thought I was the youngest regular or semi regular here ;-) !

I thought I was the youngest regular or semi regular here

Haha, nope. I hold that title for now. When did you start posting here? If you were 16 and a half or less, then you WERE the youngest. :)

Oh yeah, and IM(Very)HO Ruth is slightly better than Bonds because he pitched. I have no real opinion on this; it changes each week.

I'd like to apologize to Randy. My comments were way too over the top, and they have been removed.

Damn, I wanted to see what those comments everyone was applauding actually were Craig lol.

And Donkit, looks like you've got some more competition. I'm 17 also. :)

I started frequenting the site as soon as it was opened, which wasn't all that long after I turned 17.

Donkit, Simon: We should start some kind of Junior ZLC or something. :)
In all seriousness, this place is a haven from the nonstop Leafs stuff here in the GTA.

http://economics.about.com
Donkit, Simon: We should start some kind of Junior ZLC or something. :)

I'm 26 but I act like I'm 12.. can I join? :)

Cheers,

Mike

lol, I don't think we can deny the incomparable Mike Moffat ;-)

Rob : I live nowhere near the GTA, so I can still stomach the Leafs (and can still cheer passionately).

Bah! The Leafs... The main reason why I dislike hockey so much today is because of the 24/7 coverage of the Leafs from when I lived in Ontario. Even though I've been gone for nearly six years now, just the mention of the Leafs makes me want to pull a Burley.

I just prefer to play naive, Ryan. Now with this site, I can handle any attempts by the mainstream media to shove the Leafs down my throat because even if they covered the Jays closely, theyw ouldn't do as good a job as everyone in Da Box anyway. Plus, living Down East sports coverage isn't quite as Leafs-centric as you all seem to think the GTA coverage is (though the Leafs are number one, still).

Donkit, Simon: We should start some kind of Junior ZLC or something. :)
In all seriousness, this place is a haven from the nonstop Leafs stuff here in the GTA.


lol, yup. I was under the impression at one point that I too was the youngest reg/semi-regular to browse this site. As an 18-year-old, it's kinda sad that NONE of my friends (and I do have friends ;))could care less about baseball. One thing for certain is that the Blue Jays fan demographics are certainly much, much, much older than the Leafs or Raptors. I guess we're a rare bread ;)

...that's breed, not bread ;)

My problem is that despite being in New Brunswick and pretty tuned into local affairs, I'm still very Toronto-centred when it comes to my sports coverage because I want every piece of Blue Jays information. Sadly this habit is probably going to be impossible to break. I go through the Toronto sports sections online daily, I watch the Ontario feed of Sportsnet, and I listen to The Fan 590 through ExpressVu. The Leafs dominate every publication and broadcast I make use of regularly.

Without hypnosis to mentally block the Leafs out or government-mandated L-Chip technology in all televisions, I fear that when I'm old and senile I'll be constantly muttering to myself, "the Leafs suck, '67 and never again, the Leafs suck." Anyone wearing a Leafs sweater will stand a good chance of being whacked with my cane. :-)

The Fan 590 through ExpressVu

That's my NB routine as well.

The Fan 590 through ExpressVu

That's my NB routine as well.

If any of you think that the top to bottom talent level per team is any better today than in Ruth's day, I would disagree.

I was silent, merely lurking the troll-infestation (wow, two blogisms in one sentence), but I have to say that this is the first time that I have ever heard or read this assertion. Generally, those who back Ruth in the Bonds v. Ruth debate concede the point that league talent is much greater now than it was in the early 20th century.

The assertion is wrong, and we all know it's wrong. Unfortunately, without the help of Christopher Lloyd and the Flex Capacitor, we'll never be able to disprove it.

Leigh, I'm surprised at you.

It's Flux Capacitor.

Generally, those who back Ruth in the Bonds v. Ruth debate concede the point that league talent is much greater now than it was in the early 20th century... Unfortunately, without the help of Christopher Lloyd and the Flex Capacitor, we'll never be able to disprove it.

I don't think this is right. Well, I guess it depends on your standard of "proof".

An examination of the playing level of "replacement talent" vis-a-vis the average player would help demonstrate this, as would an analysis of the differences between players (i.e. the spread of player ability). I have been meaning to work on this, but it's currently a low priority.

So the J-ZLC has myself, Donkit, Robbie, Moffatt, and Simon. Well, it's not quite WAMCO, but RDRMS will do. (All we need now is the kid from The Shining.)

And our average age is slightly less than that of Detroit's 2003 rotation. :)

Craig B, here's a simpler way to look at it. Take athletic performance where we can actually see the differences:

- speed: the record for the 100 metre dash falls steadily, and the average national athlete now would have won Olympic Gold in 1948 easily

-endurance: it was news 50 years ago when Roger Bannister ran a 4:00 mile; this would be a routine performance of an average national athlete now

-strength: I'm sure that the average national weightlifter now lifts more than the Olympic gold-medal winner from 1960

-flexibility and motor co-ordination: the average national gymnast now does much more difficult routines than the one which Nadia Comaneci performed to such great acclaim 30 years ago.

Baseball requires strength, speed, flexibility and motor co-ordination. The training methods which have resulted improved performance in easily verifiable and objective ways in other sports should have similar effect in baseball.

I'm writing a research paper based on this great debate, and I'd just like to say that reading everyone's comments helped out a great deal, gave me quite a few different tangents to work into my paper. I'm also thrilled (and a bit surprised) to see so many non-Giants fans adamently supporting Bonds. I hope you're all enjoying the season!

I'm writing a research paper based on this great debate, and I'd just like to say that reading everyone's comments helped out a great deal, gave me quite a few different tangents to work into my paper. I'm also thrilled (and a bit surprised) to see so many non-Giants fans adamently supporting Bonds. I hope you're all enjoying the season!

I'm writing a research paper based on this great debate, and I'd just like to say that reading everyone's comments helped out a great deal, gave me quite a few different tangents to work into my paper. I'm also thrilled (and a bit surprised) to see so many non-Giants fans adamently supporting Bonds. I hope you're all enjoying the season!